Skip to main content

About your Search

20120928
20121006
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7
surveillance by the federal government and they are challenging the law that allows electronic surveillance, this wiretapping because they're concerned that their case will be picked up. they're claiming to have standing to challenge this law because even though the surveillance might be directed overseas to people they're talking to get their dedication will get picked up in the course of that surveillance and so therefore they have the right to challenge it in court. that is the standing issue we we are dealing with. just to get to the merits for a minute, and the aftermath of the exposÉ in the mid-70's about various abuses in the intelligence community and in short in short is set up a system by which the executive branch would have to go to the court surveillance court here in d.c. and get permission when they wanted to do wiretapping for national security purpose to give sworn intelligence information. this is way of making sure that the court, there was a court that had to check and had a role in reviewing the government's effort to do this wiretapping which they ended up using in in
in the nation. we pass the combating autism into law, critical for those families. iran is a national security threat to the united states and allies in israel. i joined at the republican senator from illinois was passed in most crippling sanctions by one company against another and got a 100 [cheers and applause] zero vote in the united states senate, something you don't see too often. working with republican senator, chair of the housing subcommittee, we pass into law doubling housing. those are three of many examples i can. for i have worked with republican senators on the other site to make a difference for new jersey families. talking about bipartisan all-time, 90% of these those durand line with his party in the state legislature. every time his colleagues want to seek an override, he has never found once an opportunity to join them and say no. >> moderator: michael aron at the next question to senator menendez. >> senator menendez can the team to snipe at each other all the time. you seem to have a chilly relationship with governor christie dating back to 2006 when you were the target o
law baseline, and cbo analyzes that. cbo talked about how going over the fiscal cliff at the end of this year would bring us back -- likely bring us back into recession, but they also talked about how the fiscal cliff later in the ten year window would cause higher economic growth. i think that's very important to hold on to because we have been in the habit of kicking the fiscal can down the road. they all happen to land in front of us, and i'm here today to say we shouldn't just kick the can down the road again. we shouldn't even try to substitute the fiscal can with the grand bargain like simpson-bowles simply because it is too hard for us. i know we can't do that. i'm proposing instead of, and i'm proposing, not congress, i'm proposing that instead of substituting the fiscal cliff or ignoring it, that we recycle those fiscal cans. we can't kick it, but we have to recycle it. there's the notion, all the fiscal cans representing certain policies that we were willing to commit to in the past that legislators past, committing to the tax bush cuts expiring at the end of 2010 and 2
's assume a new set of laws is passed. as quickly as they are passed, election lawyers figure out how to get around them. it is remarkable. it's constantly evolve issue. would i support moving the money back to the candidates. absolutely. i think there has to be a mechanism i worked for two millionaire politicians. i believe there should be a mechanism for rank and file. to be able to raise larger amounts. but i believe putting the money back in the candidate account create more accountability and much more integrity driven process to frame an election. me personally yes. and, you know, does my firm make money off the kinds of campaign. absolutely. from my perspective i think it's better for the country if we went back to that model. >> can i answer? >> i don't know that i agree with the assumption of the question. if you look at what -- [inaudible] look at what super pac actually do and what the advertising does, everyone in here age lot of people in the political times remember the question in political times 101 should the elected representative do what he believes is right or what the co
the law. um, and if you do that in this case, there is no reasonable justification for a continuation of the exclusivity ban. so i think, i think the chairman's order, um, as you describe it, um, is the appropriate course of action to take. um, you know, are -- and that's been comcast's position in the proceeding. um, life is long. as you note, our order lasts until 2018. um, and so for whatever it applies to over that period of time, it applies to. but after that period of time we should be treated like everybody else, um, and again if, um, if people believe that it is appropriate for the exclusivity ban to continue, they need to go back to congress and to get different legislation than the legislation that exists now. because the current legislation simply does not support the exclusivity ban in the current competitive positive -- posture of the marketplace. >> what happens when october 5th rolls around and it expires? do we suddenly see several exclusive contracts out there? >> guest: i don't think so. i think the fears have been overstated. i think that the marketplace now is such
spying. you have the law of the land in the united states. for the chinese, it is an attractive alternative. when you are on the other side of the trade and you know your competitor or the person you buy something from us under pressure financially, you should hold the card and send a card. so you just don't want to get to a point where the chinese say, look, we will do this, but we want much higher interest rates. so that is when race could spike, really impact the economy, be much costlier for average folks because rates will follow suit and will see a spiraling out of control now. so that is why you just don't want to have some other player having cars like that. in addition, you need economic growth in terms of raising revenue before this country. we are seeing growth contracts. that's okay, but it's just okay. it is not where we should meet in this kind of recovery, at this moment in the recovery based on typical recovery. next year as a result of going over the fiscal cliff and that of course is the expiration of the tax cuts to the spending programs for the most economist
to the top of the harvard law review and a blind test becomes a top editor there. everything he has done as clean as a whistle. he's never broken a law comment on it or want from a perfect father american and all they do is crash the guy. >> so that is the bar now been set for the presidency. he hasn't broken any law. okay, i think we all can accept the nomination for presidency. look, the only trashing that has been done over the last three and a half years is to our economy and to our international stature and that has been done by this president. and actually, chris, i personally have complimented president obama many times and i'll be listened to my radio show now i share to do a fair amount. look, president obama might not know a lot about economics, but he does a mean karaoke. siliceous celebrate that. let's all hold hearings. mus back so in love with you. ♪ ishat all? come on. imagine mitt romney doing that. ♪ i'm so in love with you. >> i'm sorry, you've got to give it to both sides. our second obamagasm award. there's a priester, i can go to confession. goes to someone who c
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7